20 January 2021
Media: Stuff
Topic: Te Ahi Tupua sculpture
Enquiry
Afraid it's Hemo Gorge sculpture again.
I've received some comment from the Taxpayers Union re the other Gurit report and thought you might want to respond to their specific claims?
The Gurit report says "further investigation is required to verify the structural integrity of the structure" - has that happened or is it scheduled to take place?
Gurit also noted laminate is defective and likely an issue at the connections "this could result in progressive damage to the connection over time and reduce the expected lifespan of the sculpture" - can I ask what the estimated lifespan of the sculpture is and whether that has been reduced in light of Gurit's findings?
The Taxpayers' Union also claimed a potential rebuild may be needed - can I ask whether that is being considered?
*NOTE: this enquiry is the latest in a series from Stuff relating to the sculpture.
See 13 January enquiry HERE
See 14 January enquiry HERE
See 15 January enquiry HERE
Response
From Arts and Culture Manager Stewart Brown below:
The report they are referring to [GU7231 - 801] is an earlier report.
The final report [GU7231 - 802] from Gurit references this earlier testing [see pages 3 (summary) and 5 (overview and introduction)] and notes that this led to additional full-scale testing. The final report [GU7231 - 802] was the result of that additional full-scale testing and concludes that Te Ahi Tupua exceeds the design loads by 620%.
Te Ahi Tupua is designed to last 50 plus years.
We have nothing further at this time.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Costs relating to resource consent applications for wastewater treatment plant upgrade and treated wastewater discharge
Enquiry
Initial enquiry received 18 January:
As you may be aware, my colleague . . . made a LGOIMA request last year asking for "All costs incurred by the Rotorua District Council as part of the Environment Court case ENV-2020-AKL-000052 between Rotorua District Council as the applicant and Rotorua District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council as consent authorities. Please break this down by when bills were received and what for rather than providing a lump sum.
The council's response was:
Supplier | Doc Date | Amount |
ECOFISH RESEARCH LIMITED | 30/06/2020 | $ 1,634 |
JACANA CONSULTING LIMITED | 30/06/2020 | $ 1,380 |
TE ONEWA CONSULTANTS LIMITED | 30/06/2020 | $ 2,990 |
MOTT MACDONALD NEW ZEALAND LTD | 3/07/2020 | $ 3,850 |
TOMPKINS WAKE | 10/07/2020 | $ 7,560 |
TE ONEWA CONSULTANTS LIMITED | 31/07/2020 | $ 868 |
WILDLAND CONSULTANTS LIMITED | 31/07/2020 | $ 7,571 |
TOMPKINS WAKE | 18/08/2020 | $ 9,080 |
MOTT MACDONALD NEW ZEALAND LTD | 28/08/2020 | $ 2,875 |
MOTT MACDONALD NEW ZEALAND LTD | 28/08/2020 | $ 6,063 |
WILDLAND CONSULTANTS LIMITED | 31/08/2020 | $ 6,788 |
TOMPKINS WAKE | 15/09/2020 | $ 8,360 |
MOTT MACDONALD NEW ZEALAND LTD | 25/09/2020 | $ 3,500 |
STANTEC NEW ZEALAND | 30/09/2020 | $ 33,030 |
MOTT MACDONALD NEW ZEALAND LTD | 28/10/2020 | $ 2,813 |
$ 98,362 |
I am writing a story . . . about this info, and have some questions for the council regarding it. If the question is not applicable to the council as an organisation, can you please have the mayor answer it.
Questions
- Given this legal action has since been abandoned, is the council comfortable this is money well-spent? If so why / why not?
- Is there any way these costs could have been avoided or reduced? How / why not?
- What services (broadly speaking) did each of these organisations provide to the council for this case?
- How have these costs impacted the council's budget?
- Was the cost of these proceedings the reason, or part of the reason, why the action was withdrawn? Please expand.
- Any other relevant comment the council / mayor wishes to make on this topic.For the mayor: What is the justification of this cost to ratepayers, given the legal action was abandoned?Subsequently received from reporter 19 January:Kia ora,Got some comments here for right of reply for the mayor/council where appropriate:Taonga not Toilet campaigner Renee Kiriona, of Ngāti Uenukukōpako, said the spending was a "waste of money" and "ridiculous"."The entire litigation could have been avoided if they put their ears on earlier."But do they care? It's not their money."--Te Arawa Lakes Trust chairman Sir Toby Curtis said the cost "probably could have been avoided" but he was comfortable with the figure.--Tīpene Marr was a Bay of Plenty Regional councillor from 2004 to 2019, and submitted against the proposed discharge method.He said he didn't think it was an "exorbitant amount", especially since the council had "backed off" its original plan.He said more consultation would have helped and the council should have listened to Te Arawa Lakes Trust earlier."That's the Māori voice for the lakes."--
Rotorua Residents and Ratepayers secretary Paddi Hodgkiss said the council's spending was "ill-advised and reflecting extremely poor judgment", and was not a good use of money.
Response
See below in response to your enquiry relating to Council's resource consent application for wastewater treatment upgrade and discharge of treated wastewater. Following our phone conversation yesterday (Tuesday) regarding the terminology used in your enquiry, I think it's important to first emphasise a few points to ensure this matter is accurately represented and reported.
This was not "legal action" as you have described it. This matter was a statutory process (ie application for resource consent) and there is a procedural option to refer resource consent applications directly to the Environment Court.
Knowing there was opposition which could lead to a need for mediation and/or a court hearing, Council referred the matter directly to the Environment Court to save all parties the cost and time of having to go through two sets of hearings.
In your questions you also refer to council "abandoning" this matter which is not correct. Council was granted permission by the Environment Court to withdraw the direct referral on the basis that RLC had reached an agreement with CNI and TALT on a new way forward (ie the kawenata that was announced in August last year). The rest of the application, relating to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, remains 'live' and will be progressed, along with a bridging consent that is needed (explained by Stavros below).
Expert advice and services is a normal cost associated with resource consent applications and would have been needed regardless of whether this matter was dealt with by the Environment Court or not.
You'll find more information re the kawenata, background and where to from here at THIS LINK. We would encourage you to familiarise yourself with this important kaupapa.
From Infrastructure Group Manager Stavros Michael:
RLC has operated a Land Treatment System (LTS) in Whakarewarewa Forest for the discharge of wai tātari (treated wastewater) from the Rotorua city wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) since 1991.
However, that system was found to no longer be sustainable and the landowners objected to continued discharge in the forest.
The level of nitrogen in the treated wastewater discharging through the Puarenga Catchment also resulted in an abatement notice and the Environment Court requiring RLC to investigate viable alternatives for the discharge of wai tātari from the treatment plant.
Council agreed that continued use of land within the forest for discharge of wai tātari was not sustainable, and not consistent with its status as a taonga or the relationship of iwi and hapū with their taonga.
An iwi-led project steering committee was established and following several years of engagement, put forward a preferred option to upgrade the treatment plant and discharge treated wastewater to Arikiroa/Sanitorium Reserve via a culturally designed land contact bed.
There was, however, opposition from some parties to discharging to Arikiroa and when Council approved [in June 2016] proceeding to consent applications for the proposal, it also committed to continuing discussions with key stakeholders to try and find alternative options.
Those ongoing discussions resulted [in August 2020] in a new agreement between Rotorua Lakes Council, CNI Iwi Holdings and Te Arawa Lakes Trust to work together towards a new long-term solution for discharge of wai tātari (recovered wastewater). [see HERE from August 2020 re kawenata]
The kawenata outlines a process to develop and implement a Sustainable Forest Approach (SFA) while the parties continue working towards a long-term solution that will not include use of the forest land. The SFA includes upgrading Council's wastewater treatment plant and use of a set area of land within Whakarewarewa Forest. CNI has agreed to allow the continuation of the current forest spray system - with some improvements - until the SFA is agreed and in place.
Given the change in situation [ie reaching agreement with CNI and TALT], Council sought - and was granted - permission to withdraw its resource consent application from the Environment Court.
Council had referred the application directly to the Environment Court given that strong opposition from some parties to the proposed point of discharge meant there would likely be a need for mediation and/or a court hearing.
Resource consent is a regulatory requirement and consent will be required to implement the new proposals outlined in the kawenata.
Expert advice and services is a normal cost associated with resource consent applications and the work undertaken to support the consent application includes expert technical, engineering, legal and environmental advice [see info provided under LGOIMA] relating to both the wastewater treatment plant upgrade and the proposed discharge to Arikiroa. This will still be needed and used and would have been needed regardless of whether the application was dealt with through the Environment Court or not.
The part of the application relating to upgrading the wastewater treatment plant, which will improve the quality of our treated wastewater, was not opposed and that will now be progressed in the usual way via the regional council and RLC in their regulatory roles.
Because it will take time to develop and implement the SFA, Council also needs to get a "Bridging Consent" to continue the current system in the meantime. The consent for the current system expires in July 2021 and the bridging consent will seek to continue the current forest system for up to 5 years. Work on the bridging consent is underway.
The process from here
Prepare and lodge resource consent application to continue using current forest system in the short term (current consent runs out July 2021);
Prepare and lodge resource consent application to authorise new sustainable approach for medium-term discharge to reduced area of land within the forest;
Explore and pursue alternative long-term option for the discharge of treated wastewater that does not require the use of the land of the Collective Iwi.
From Mayor Steve Chadwick:
Council had to find a new solution for discharge of the community's treated wastewater and an extensive engagement process with stakeholders, led by a steering committee, resulted in a preferred option.
In June 2016 when elected members approved proceeding to a resource consent application for the preferred option, we also committed to continuing to work with key stakeholders to try and find an alternative discharge option because there was opposition from some parties.
That has resulted in the kawenata between RLC, CNI and Te Arawa Lakes Trust, giving us more time to find a suitable long-term solution for our community and that's a good outcome. Reaching agreement has taken a lot of hard work and good will from the parties involved.
Obtaining resource consent is a regulatory requirement and it is rather nave to think there should or would be no costs incurred as part of the consenting process.
Subsequent enquiry
I am concerned the response does not adequately address the criticism at the core of the comments, which is the suggestion these costs could have been avoided or reduced if the council had paid more attention to the opposition concerns earlier, and did not take the preferred option (discharging to Arikiroa) to the resource consent application stage.The mayor's response touches on this, but does not explain why the council felt it had to push ahead to make the application for that option when it was still working on alternatives. Could it not have instead taken the consent process it is taking now (described under 'the process from here' in your email) and still met its regulatory obligations?
I would also be appreciated it if you would address my original questions - if you could please respond in line with each of these that would be ideal:
- Given the council's withdrawal of the matter from the Environment Court, is the council comfortable this is money well-spent? If so why / why not?
- Is there any way these costs could have been avoided or reduced? How / why not?
- What services (broadly speaking) did each of these organisations provide to the council for this case?
- How have these costs impacted the council's budget?
- Was the cost of these proceedings the reason, or part of the reason, why the action was withdrawn? Please expand.
And an additional one in light of what information you have provided:
- Were these costs (as in the LGOIMA response) impacted by the council's decision to refer the matter to the Environment Court? i.e. did referring the matter to the Environment Court mean the council spent more on this matter than it would have in a regular resource consent process?
Response
The response provided addresses the matters raised and questions asked and there is nothing further to add at this time but to further assist with your understanding of the agreed process that was undertaken (ie establishment of community project steering group to consider options and recommend a preferred option), the following links to information will also assist you with your understanding of this kaupapa. As you'll note, there has been a lot of work on this over a number of years and I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with the background for your understanding and to enable you to provide the relevant context. Links below:
- The report that went to SP&F in June 2016 (the committee passed the recommendations and they were subsequently approved by the Full Council) is HERE (this decision point is referenced by the mayor in her comments). The report outlines the mahi that was undertaken to that point including options canvassed.
- There was subsequently further work and further consultation in 2017 and you'll find information relating to that (plus info re the work of the steering committee going further back) HERE This includes FAQs and the agreement to get out of the forest, which includes agreement to establish a project steering committee to come up with a preferred alternative option re discharge.
- The kawenata announcement is HERE Re were these costs (as in the LGOIMA response) impacted by the council's decision to refer the matter to the Environment Court? i.e. did referring the matter to the Environment Court mean the council spent more on this matter than it would have in a regular resource consent process?:
As per Stavros Michael's comments: "Expert advice and services is a normal cost associated with resource consent applications and the work undertaken to support the consent application includes expert technical, engineering, legal and environmental advice [see info provided under LGOIMA] relating to both the wastewater treatment plant upgrade and the proposed discharge to Arikiroa. This will still be needed and used and would have been needed regardless of whether the application was dealt with through the Environment Court or not." ________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: Water supply
Enquiry
I am working on a story today about low stream levels/dry conditions throughout the Bay of Plenty and was hoping to please get some questions away to see what the current situation is in various centres in the region.
1. What is the current situation with the city's water levels? Are water restrictions likely? and if so, what timeframe would we be looking at for that?
2. How much water do residents use on average each day so far this month?
3. Has recent rainfall made much difference? If not, why not?
4. Do you have any advice for residents to help aid this issue?
5. Are there any other comments you wish to make on this?
Response
From 3 Waters Services Manager Eric Cawte:
The situation for Rotorua is different from other large cities that rely on large storage reservoirs which are dependent on rainfall. Most of the sources for Rotorua are underground springs which generally produce a consistent amount of water regardless of season or weather conditions.
The issues faced by Rotorua are the limits on resource consents, and the ability of our pumps and treatment systems to keep up with daily demand from consumers.
At present the daily demand is well within our limits and pumping capability. This is likely due to consumers being more mindful of their water usage and the rainfall we've had over recent weeks.
Water restrictions are not contemplated at this stage, however, depending on consumer usage which can often be driven by weather patterns, restrictions may be considered.
The average daily use so far in January 2021 for the 3 Urban supplies combined (City, Ngongotaha and Eastern Suburbs) is 35,454 cubic meters/day, or 35.45 million litres.
We believe the recent rainfall has been significant enough to keep demand within manageable levels.
Here are our summer water conservation tips:
- Don't cut your lawns too short. Raise the lawnmower blades two inches. This will leave more shade for your lawn, help with water retention and create deeper roots for healthier grass.
- Become a leak detective and keep an eye out for water in unusual places. Call Council on 07 348 4199 straight away if you see a leak in the street.
- Save water by only running your dishwasher when you have a full load. Check to see if there is an eco or water saving mode.
- Make the most of water in your garden by using mulch to trap moisture. Water earlier in the day or in the evening so water doesn't evaporate.
- Running your hose can waste hundreds of litres of water in a short amount of time. Use a watering can to keep your garden hydrated and a bucket and sponge to clean your car.
- A family of four can use forty litres of water a day by leaving the tap running while brushing their teeth. That's 280 litres a week! Turn the tap off while you brush your teeth. Bay of Plenty Regional Council have recently advised us that they are concerned about water levels in streams I the Rotorua area in particular. Any reduction in our usage will be beneficial to the health of the aquatic environment. More info can be found here https://www.boprc.govt.nz/our-projects/dry-weather-water-management